American interest in Greenland is nothing modern. The White House has sought to acquire Greenland ever since their first interest in 1867, reflecting the island’s strategic value. Since then, the closest Washington has come to taking away Denmark’s counterpart was with Harry Truman’s attempted purchase in the late 1940’s. Truman’s endeavour was cut short however, when the forming of NATO in 1949 protected Denmark, safeguarding Greenland from the US.
Donald Trump’s attempt at acquiring Greenland, now looking more like an annexation, has been ongoing since 2019. That year however, Trump was denied by Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen. As of 2026, Trump has pushed forward this idea of the importance of Greenland increasingly. This has resulted in the so-called Greenland Crisis – marked by national protests to prevent the seizure of Greenland and to protect their sovereignty. Surveys have indicated that 85% of Greenlanders are against the American ownership. Unfortunately for the inhabitants this could eventually mean nothing amid growing geopolitical pressures.
A high-level meeting between Greenland, Denmark and the USA on 14th January in Washington D.C. was not ground-breaking, more symbolic and frightening, with the Danish foreign minister exiting the meeting stating that “it is not easy to think about solutions”, displaying the disagreement around the issue.
The value of Greenland to the USA has been repeatedly expressed by Donald Trump. With his pursuit of American global influence on the cards, Greenland to the United States would not only make the country the second largest in the world, but it would also be another foundation for the superpower to assert total global dominance.
Trump voices that the ownership of Greenland is a necessity, with Russian and Chinese influence in the Arctic already. Along with this, the vast oil reserves and mineral deposits would allow for the USA to become a much larger player within global commodity markets and take the challenge to Russia and China. In addition, the US president will also be anticipating taking control of the Greenland, Iceland and UK gap (GIUK gap), which is a geographical chokepoint. This will allow Trump to somewhat contain Russia, as their ships must pass this gap to access the Atlantic. The GIUK Gap also holds growing importance, with melting ice caps this could allow Greenland to become a primary region of the USA, with global shipping lane access and more Arctic Sea routes coming from the increase of ice melting. Ultimately, greater US control in the area would counter China’s attempt to become the world’s dominant force. China have attempted to invest in infrastructure to become an Arctic player, yet this US takeover will be a strategic gain that will be a setback for Beijing’s geopolitical objectives.
Pittufik represents another area of strategic importance in Greenland for America. Pittufik operates as a space force base for the US and plays a critical role within early warning missile detection, Arctic naval surveillance and satellite tracking operations. For the USA, these capabilities significantly strengthen the country’s security. Pittufik underpins and helps to explain Washington D.C.’s long lasting interest over Greenland.
With White House moving away from negotiations in Copenhagen’s favour towards direct engagement with Nuuk alone, it is seeming ever more imminent that Donald Trump objectives will be completed soon enough. However, if progress stalls, the risk of hard power seems an easy option for Trump to choose. In the hunt for hemispheric dominance, experience has taught both Trump and the USA that, in American perspectives, spectacular uses of the military pay off. In the past, the use of military in the Gulf War and War on Terror have both appeared to scare off threats eventually. Along with this, the eye-catching headlines of the US military is sure to be something Trump is proud of, and something for others to be wary of, humiliating enemies as and when wanted.
America could even end up battling their own treaty of NATO, and would put up a good fight, with 38% of all NATO troops being American. Trade would also be affected, no matter how the US obtain Greenland. By 1stFebruary it is already expected for 10% import tariffs to be in place for eight countries, whom are all within NATO. This it then expected to increase to 25% four months later. With this strain on NATO’s unity, it will likely lead to safe-haven assets being invested into. For example, gold and silver prices have recently hit record high prices. Gold and silver act as safe-haven assets due to their little reaction through times of high uncertainty, unlike other assets, and can also act as a hedge against low inflation rates.
Another investment option during periods of tension would be US Treasuries. However, it has been discussed that European countries could dump holdings of US Treasuries that they have. Reasons for this would be to gain political leverage, demonstrating displeasure with the US. Also, reducing Europe’s reliance on the US dollar would allow for more independence for the continent which, ultimately, fits with Europe and the EU’s long-term goals to create greater financial autonomy. Yet, this may be unlikely on a wider scale due to the Treasuries offering unparalleled stability meaning they will be difficult to replace.
The pressure exerted by the United States on Europe could further result in a fragmentation of NATO, with some members potentially siding with the USA due to security dependencies. Such divisions could then create opportunity for China and Russia to intervene and expand their influence. With a weakened NATO, China could be in a position to become an alternate economic partner for the EU and allow Europe to advance at a greater rate than has been seen recently.
Another, albeit improbable, deterrent that could be used against the US could be to shut down access to foreign military bases hosted by American allies. Examples of this are the several RAF bases, a naval base and a space force base all located on UK territory. This idea may not deter America’s mission; yet it would be a symbolic act and demonstration to oppose US policy. Moreover, these restrictions are highly unlikely due to the strain and reliance of countries on the United States. Overall, there appears to be a limited number of deterrents which can constrain the White House and their seizure of Greenland.
To put it in perspective, it seems increasingly inevitable that Greenland will fall under the authority of Donald Trump. The superpower of America under the control of Trump looks to be one of little looking back, and one with integrity and forcefulness. The amount of resources USA already has makes it hard for any country to go up against; few nations are able to confront a country with dominant trade, financial systems and which will raise tariffs as and when wanted. With tariffs getting higher, and a reliance on America from many countries, it appears that tensions could become higher until one side yields. For markets in general, the commodities market could be permanently reshaped. Control for Washington D.C. over oil, gas, and rare minerals will shift pressure onto rivals such as Russia and China, while also increasing market volatility. In the long run this has the potential to impact the pricing of market shares, with American control over what could be the majority of Arctic resources. This is all ever closer with an outlook from the US defined through hard power and no remorse, and in the blunt words of the deputy chief of the White House “we live in a world governed by force”, and Greenland may become the proving point.